corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19057

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Schwartz LM, Woloshin S.
Changing disease definitions: implications for disease prevalence. Analysis of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994.
Eff Clin Pract 1999; 2:(2):76-85.
http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/journals_publications/ecp/marapr99/changing.htm


Abstract:

CONTEXT: In the hope of extending treatment benefits to patients with early disease, various professional societies have recommended changing several common disease definitions by lowering the threshold value for diagnosis. COUNT: Number of Americans labeled “diseased” under new definitions for diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and being overweight. CALCULATION: [symbol: see text]

DATA SOURCE: Adult participants (age > 17 years) in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994).

RESULTS: Adopting the new definitions would dramatically inflate disease prevalence. Changing the threshold for diabetes from a fasting glucose level of > or = 140 mg/dL to > or = 126 mg/dL would result in 1.7 million new cases. Redefining hypertension as systolic blood pressure > or = 140 mm Hg instead of > or = 160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure > or = 90 mm Hg instead of > or = 100 mm Hg would create 13 million new hypertensive patients. For hypercholesterolemia (a cholesterol level of > or = 200 mg/dL instead of > or = 240 mg/dL) and being overweight (body mass index > or = 25 kg/m2 instead of > or = 27 kg/m2), the number of new cases would be 42 million and 29 million, respectively. The new definitions ultimately label 75% of the adult U.S. population as diseased.

CONCLUSIONS: If these modest changes in disease definition were adopted, great numbers of people would be considered diseased. The extent to which new “patients” would ultimately benefit from early detection and treatment of these conditions is unknown. Whether they would experience important physical or psychological harm is an open question.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909